Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#661

Post by BobbyJo »

moralestapia wrote: post #353
tharne wrote: post #4

Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again. I still remember being lectured in school on the food pyramid and the importance of getting your 8-10 servings of grains a day.

Wait, so grains are bad now?

They shouldn't be most of what you eat, since they have a lot of digestible carbohydrates compared to the amount of fiber, fat, and vitamins, but they are certainly not bad for you.

Your calories (unless you're a genetic outlier) should be relatively evenly split between carbs and fat. If whole grains are where most of the carbs are coming from, that's fine. Science says so.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#663

Post by RHSeeger »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #617
floatingatoll wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely acceptable to knowingly exchange damage to body for healing to mind, and vice versa as well. But I still appreciate that science is gradually making clear that alcohol is not perfectly harmless, and that a large-scale health foundation is finally admitting that.

The mind is part of the body Also contrary to popular belief, alcohol does not heal or help the mind unless perhaps you have methanol poisoning or are in the middle of a panic attack

Alcohol can be part of having a fun time, and having a fun time occasionally is good for your mental health (as opposed to the physical health of your brain, which appears to be what you're talking about).

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#664

Post by dmz73 »

The article seems to cherry pick official statements to support the title. "Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and aneurysm. "To date, no reliable correlation has been found between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk of heart disease." "Studies that claim otherwise are based on purely observational research, which fails to account for other factors, such as pre-existing conditions and a history of alcoholism in those considered to be 'abstinent'.

So they claim their research shows increased risk, not stating by how much - there is difference between 0.5% and 15% and 50%, across a broad range of conditions. The only counterpoint mentioned is that there is no reliable correlation between moderate (no mention of what that is) consumption and lower risk of heart disease - what about all the other conditions? Finally there is a quote dismissing other research because it fails to account for other factor but there is hardly any mention on what factors have been accounted for in the current research.

The whole thing seems poorly written and seems to preach instead of document and explain.

Consumption of any substance in sufficient quantities will cause harm - you can drown by drinking too much water in too short of a period of time but no one is going to suggest that because of that there isn't any quantity of water is safe to consume.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#665

Post by volkl48 »

loceng wrote: post #658
f38zf5vdt wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another article from The Lancet from around the same time reported a whopping... 6 months of life expectancy reduction when consuming 100-200g of alcohol a week versus 0-100g of alcohol a week. [1, Figure 4] A drink is 14 grams of alcohol, so that means that your risk from consuming 150 grams, or over 10 drinks a week, is still relatively low in terms of all-cause mortality. Figure 1 also shows that consumption of 0-…

I wish we'd stop using shallow metrics life longevity over quality - it causes the layperson (who hasn't developed their critical thinking enough yet, or perhaps not capable to) to skim over that "lifespan" doesn't take into account all kinds of qualitative variables - including alcohol being a depressant, literally you're depressing how sharp your nervous system can be; yes, which people often self-medicate with bec…

Maybe you have a different point in mind, but I am skeptical that there are any consumers of alcohol that are not aware that it is partially a depressant. This is both obvious to any consumer of it, and taught in every school that does any sort of substance (ab)use education.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#666

Post by wing-_-nuts »

jghn wrote: post #489
allturtles wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I find the claim "no level of alcohol consumption is safe" hyperbolic. You could claim with far more justification that "no amount of driving is safe" since you could be killed pulling out of your driveway but I think most people who drive on a daily basis would find this claim odd. "safety" is a relative, not an absolute condition, since in some sense being alive is unsafe.

It's because for years there was a claim that low levels of consumption was beneficial, not just safe. They're working to undo that conventional wisdom. I don't recall there ever being a time when people espoused short drives as being beneficial for one's health.

A lot of studies on alcohol and mortality show a J curve where mortality actually drops, and then starts rising until it's back at baseline at 4 drinks / day. Now, I am not saying that it's safe to drink 4 drinks per day. That's a lot. What I am saying is that is the point where cardiovascular benefits seem to be outweighed by the increased cancer risks. Many studies have called the J curve into question due to the 'sick quitter' effect, but you have to realize that by trying to correct for that effect they are often just adding a fudge factor to the numbers. Alcohol is a very hard subject to study because it's always self reported, and thus almost always under reported.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#667

Post by appletrotter »

leonidasv wrote: post #370
kstrauser wrote: post #159

Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…

Well, media has been recently overwhelmed by studies showcasing the benefits of weed so that the disadvantages of using it appear to be lower or none at all, but that's not really the case. If smoked, you're smoking tar and volatile compounds that can harm the lungs, much like a regular cigarette - although you're probably not going to smoke a pack of 20 joints in a single day like the moderate-to-heavy smoker next d…

I think that the relationship between marijuana smoking and lung damange isn't so cut and dry bad as smoking nicotine is. Here's a blurb:

> Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23802821/

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#668

Post by AlbertCory »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #650
netizen-936824 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mind is part of the body Also contrary to popular belief, alcohol does not heal or help the mind unless perhaps you have methanol poisoning or are in the middle of a panic attack

> alcohol does not heal or help the mind Is it not possible that some people find alcohol in reasonable doses to be a net positive mentally and mood-wise?

The sibling posts make the right point: lots of things are objectively bad for your body, but your emotions are part of it, too. If alcohol or whatever makes you happier, then it's "good for you." Until you have so much that it's not good for you anymore.

It's the same for sweet desserts: why TF should you deprive yourself of all of them? Just keep it in moderation.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#669

Post by dionidium »

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...

Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from commercial air travel, suddenly the CDC is very interested in levels of exposure and has language that provides context intended to downplay the risks.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html

Why these statements bother us when they're about one thing and not another -- or, indeed, why our health agencies would choose language like this for some kinds of risks and not others -- is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#670

Post by Broken_Hippo »

allturtles wrote: post #389
kstrauser wrote: post #159

Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…

Setting aside tradition/ritual, which I don't think should count for nothing, I can think of many objective metrics on which alcohol is superior: - Flavor - Fills the stomach (can be a disadvantage too, but is advantageous in some situations, e.g. while waiting for dinner to be served at a party) - Doesn't consume itself (i.e you can set down a drink and come back to it 30 minutes later) - Easy to consume a small amo…

Each of of these can be solved with a either edibles, vaping (or a number of non-fire options), or a pipe with small bowl.
Post reply on HN